Next Article in Journal
Direct Etherification Reaction of Glycerol Using Alkali Metal Cation (Li+, Na+ and K+) Containing X-Type Zeolites as Heterogeneous Catalysts: Optimization of the Reaction Conditions
Next Article in Special Issue
Surface Modification towards Integral Bulk Catalysts of Transition Metal Borides for Hydrogen Evolution Reaction
Previous Article in Journal
Carbon-Supported KCoMoS2 for Alcohol Synthesis from Synthesis Gas
Previous Article in Special Issue
Catalytic Hydrogen Production, Storage and Application
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Poisoning Effect of CO: How It Changes Hydrogen Electrode Reaction and How to Analyze It Using Differential Polarization Curve

Catalysts 2021, 11(11), 1322; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11111322
by Osami Seri 1,* and Kazunao Furumata 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Catalysts 2021, 11(11), 1322; https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11111322
Submission received: 6 October 2021 / Revised: 28 October 2021 / Accepted: 28 October 2021 / Published: 30 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Catalytic Hydrogen Production, Storage and Application)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted manuscript entitled “The Change of hydrogen electrode reaction when CO-poisoned and its analysis using resistance curve techniques” describes in detail how plotting polarization resistance curves (h vs. j) can be employed to complement common E-I techniques in determination of kinetic parameters of CO-poisoned HER. The findings are interesting and the presented methodology is logically consistent and mathematically precise.

The paper should be considered for publication in Catalysts after some minor revisions.

The paper contains 254 equations and 30 figures on 50 pages (mostly mathematical derivations from one equation to another). I advise authors to keep only final (and other necessary) equations which are needed for application of the proposed technique. The rest should be removed from the manuscript and placed in supplementary data. The same should be done with the images in order to get a concise scientific report.

The manuscript is well written, but should be checked for typos. I noticed few, in Fig. 27 on the right y-axis, for instance; or using two designations (i and j) for current density, etc. The use of curly bracket { in listings is pretty much redundant (like in lines 58-63). The authors cited a number of books for their ground principles, but did not provide page numbers of these in the References. Addition of book page numbers could be of value to some readers, and it is also advised by the Journal (see Instructions for Authors).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop